PS4 Online Multiplayer Requires PS+ Subscription
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
so they manage to do a lot of things that we should have expected of them ANYWAY, and they make online multiplayer locked behind a paywall. Man our standards have DROPPED
That's a little bit of a shame, but it's not too bad. I'll probably only pay for PS4 online when I get my own place but I'll still have a 360.
At least they offer free games and hopefully the customer service will be better cos a few have told me its a bit pants right now. Hopefully they'll have some great deals like the xbox does.
Also I hope our PSN accounts are the same, so I can play the Ps3 and PSX games I bought.
At least they offer free games and hopefully the customer service will be better cos a few have told me its a bit pants right now. Hopefully they'll have some great deals like the xbox does.
Also I hope our PSN accounts are the same, so I can play the Ps3 and PSX games I bought.
Background:360 owner who has been using Steam for older and lower-tech games recently.
So I've been pretty much decided not to get an Xbox One -- the few advantages that console gaming had over PC just don't remotely cut it with all the anti-consumer nonsense Microsoft is just assuming consumers will just accept. So I had been thinking I would be getting a slightly higher grade PC- I don't need any high-end gaming rig, I'm happy lowering graphics settings as long as things run smoothly.
It had never occurred to me before though to get a Playstation 4 -- but now that we know its 1 not in need to check in 2 not trying to intervene in the usage of used games 3 $100 cheaper and 4 the Xbox One doesn't have backwards compatibility anyway I might give it a look. Buying used copies of newish game on Amazon is still more expensive than Steam obviously, but I can still use Steam for older and simpler stuff like I do now and get used PS4 games (after like 3-4 weeks a AAA game can frequently be found for 40-ish bucks on Amazon and you don't really know if a game is good right after launch anyway) And besides, some PC games are going to be Origin exclusive anyway and those hardly ever get anywhere near Steam prices no matter HOW old the game is so I might not always save money on new games on PC.
So, having been using Xbox Live Gold, I don't really have an issue with the subscription fee - as long as Sony can show that their security problems are sorted out, that's fine by me.
Since neither the Xbox One nor the PS4 have backwards compatibility, there's no cost to me for switching brands.
Depending how many 360 owners are thinking like me, Microsoft's entertainment division might be in trouble. Just assuming that all 70 million people that had a 360 will buy and Xbox One and will just swallow their absurd presumptions to own games even after you've bought the games already is foolish. Brand loyalty is earned, and Microsoft has done very little to earn it. I'll keep an eye on the PS4 as I make a PC/PS decision.
So I've been pretty much decided not to get an Xbox One -- the few advantages that console gaming had over PC just don't remotely cut it with all the anti-consumer nonsense Microsoft is just assuming consumers will just accept. So I had been thinking I would be getting a slightly higher grade PC- I don't need any high-end gaming rig, I'm happy lowering graphics settings as long as things run smoothly.
It had never occurred to me before though to get a Playstation 4 -- but now that we know its 1 not in need to check in 2 not trying to intervene in the usage of used games 3 $100 cheaper and 4 the Xbox One doesn't have backwards compatibility anyway I might give it a look. Buying used copies of newish game on Amazon is still more expensive than Steam obviously, but I can still use Steam for older and simpler stuff like I do now and get used PS4 games (after like 3-4 weeks a AAA game can frequently be found for 40-ish bucks on Amazon and you don't really know if a game is good right after launch anyway) And besides, some PC games are going to be Origin exclusive anyway and those hardly ever get anywhere near Steam prices no matter HOW old the game is so I might not always save money on new games on PC.
So, having been using Xbox Live Gold, I don't really have an issue with the subscription fee - as long as Sony can show that their security problems are sorted out, that's fine by me.
Since neither the Xbox One nor the PS4 have backwards compatibility, there's no cost to me for switching brands.
Depending how many 360 owners are thinking like me, Microsoft's entertainment division might be in trouble. Just assuming that all 70 million people that had a 360 will buy and Xbox One and will just swallow their absurd presumptions to own games even after you've bought the games already is foolish. Brand loyalty is earned, and Microsoft has done very little to earn it. I'll keep an eye on the PS4 as I make a PC/PS decision.
As someone already willing to pay for Xbox Live Gold, I've gotta say that $5 a month for multiplayer isn't that big of a deal for me. It's made even less of a concern seeing as how Sony did so many things right with their announcement and console. Everyone was wondering how/if Sony would capitalize on all the ill-will towards MS that the XBone brought up, turns out all they had to do was say "Everything our competitor is doing that you all really don't like? Yeah, we're NOT going to be doing that."
And really that's all they HAD to say.
I've always liked my 360 and was looking forward to MS's new console seeing as how the "big reveal" event for the PS4 was rather lack-luster. I'd actually be willing to pay the extra $100 if MS had put out something I even half-way wanted. But mandatory Kinect? Murky-at-best restrictions on used games? Built-in DRM? I want absolutely nothing to do with any of that stuff. So it looks like I'll be heading back over to Sony for this next generation.
And really that's all they HAD to say.
I've always liked my 360 and was looking forward to MS's new console seeing as how the "big reveal" event for the PS4 was rather lack-luster. I'd actually be willing to pay the extra $100 if MS had put out something I even half-way wanted. But mandatory Kinect? Murky-at-best restrictions on used games? Built-in DRM? I want absolutely nothing to do with any of that stuff. So it looks like I'll be heading back over to Sony for this next generation.
I was referring to the no DRM business. People have forgotten that should be STANDARD, not a premium.Spot1990 said:
which competitors. because both Wii and PC dont have this. only Xbox does. So majority (2 out of 3) competitors dont provide such restrictions. Not sure what OUYA will bring and it can be even considered competitor (then why not add the Nvidia handheld too? and mobile phones, gets kinda pointless), but i doubt it will use such tactics either looking at how they treat such things.CrazyCapnMorgan said:
do you use all of those online? because online you wouldj sut need one of them unless you need multiple different accounts online for different characters online (which is kinda like a MMO?), in which case thats how its done anyway. still i think ahving character limit in singleplayer games is extremely stupid idea to begin with and came due to lack of power of current outdated consoles.MeChaNiZ3D said:
Well, this sucks. It doesn't cost money to hand my friend a controller, to hop online on a computer and play with a buddy and the PlayStation being free to use something basic like multiplayer in a game that you pay full price for lets say, multiplayer was why I went with it and not Xbox. I'm okay tossing 5-10$ here or there for extra stuff, but a basic game component should NOT be an extra stuff. I'm not really impressed with any of this generations consoles, they all feel desperate and gimmicky.
Nah, stuff like Netflix and the Store are free, I believe.KoudelkaMorgan said:
-
I personally find this ok, since the benefits are pretty cool and I imagine they'll be using sub money to tighten up security and improve performance, but even if I don't get it, I'm still alright. Many of my favourite PS3 games I never really used multiplayer or they didn't have it, such as the inFamous games.
I wasn't even planning on getting a console before this, now I'm re-evaluating that decision...
PS+ seems like a good deal, I have a ps3 but have never used it. Thinking of starting, one question though:
I know that when you subscribe any free games are only yours to play whilst subscribing. Say you stop paying for a month or two since for some reason you cannot afford it, I know while not paying you lose access to those games.
My question is, does it give you access back to those games you've had in the PS+ past allowing you to re-download them if deleted (I know the games you get free change) when you start paying again, or do you only have access to the freebies from the later subscription and each after as long as you keep paying.
I know that when you subscribe any free games are only yours to play whilst subscribing. Say you stop paying for a month or two since for some reason you cannot afford it, I know while not paying you lose access to those games.
My question is, does it give you access back to those games you've had in the PS+ past allowing you to re-download them if deleted (I know the games you get free change) when you start paying again, or do you only have access to the freebies from the later subscription and each after as long as you keep paying.
It's amazing how much people are willing to accept as long as it's delivered slowly, step by step.
What gets me is why nobody's thought of this - Instead of charging for multiplayer, how about PS+ players being the only ones able to establish private servers instead? Then it's either have to deal with the rabble, or be able to host your own and watch the rabble deal with you!
Normally I'd be annoyed, but when the console itself is going for £100 less than the Xbone (which is still keeping its Xbox LIVE subscription) then I can dig it.Hazy992 said:
That's unfortunate. I was hoping Sony wouldn't pull a move like this. Still, + is fucking awesome and generally a good idea to have. I'm on 1 year subscription and don't regret it, and I'll keep having it as long as it's worth it. But, I'm still sad they're forcing it.
Something people don't seem to realize, is that they are moving to a pay model because they are upgrading their servers substantially, and it costs money to keep them maintained. Now I've been paying for Xbox live for a while, and I don't mind because it has been of wonderful quality. Now if the playstation is also getting this quality, with the better system, and the better services, and now better quality online, then I don't mind paying. Plus, they already do deals, for example, everytime you buy a year, you get 3 months free.
If it takes a $5 a month subscription to bring PSN's matching and chat services on par with the competition, then that's a fair trade off. We've always known that SONY gave away a little too much for free with PSN. Heck they outright told us this 2 years ago. $5 for PS+ ($4 if you buy annually) seems fairly reasonable. They sweeten the deal with freebies and deals, and really it is focusing the cost on those that use the service. It sucks a little. But if that's what it takes for infrastructure for things like Elder Scrolls online?
